[00:00:00] Speaker 04:
Our third case this morning is number 23-10-16, Inray Universal Electronics Inc.

[00:00:07] Speaker 04:
Okay, Mr. Lucas?

[00:00:08] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:00:09] Speaker 03:
May it please the Court?

[00:00:10] Speaker 03:
Universal Electronics Inc.

[00:00:13] Speaker 03:
requests the reversal of the Board's decision

[00:00:18] Speaker 03:
Finding claims 1 through 11 of the 795 application and ballot is obvious over Kim and LeMay.

[00:00:26] Speaker 03:
I'm going to talk about two issues.

[00:00:27] Speaker 03:
I'd like to focus primarily on the claim construction issue of the board because it's, in my mind, that doesn't really pass the straight face test.

[00:00:40] Speaker 03:
It definitely doesn't.

[00:00:41] Speaker 04:
It depends how you read it.

[00:00:42] Speaker 04:
I think it's a pretty good argument that the board's construction is not different from yours.

[00:00:49] Speaker 03:
I disagree with that.

[00:00:50] Speaker 03:
I know you do.

[00:00:53] Speaker 03:
Let's look at the board's construction.

[00:00:56] Speaker 03:
I'm primarily focused on Appendix 5 and Appendix 6.

[00:01:00] Speaker 03:
It's about a paragraph to two paragraphs.

[00:01:03] Speaker 03:
I have a page.

[00:01:05] Speaker 03:
And we're dealing with the, I'll call it the anywhere limitation, where it specifically says responding to a first predetermined

[00:01:15] Speaker 03:
user input provided to any area of the touch-sensitive display.

[00:01:21] Speaker 03:
That is the Anywhere limitation that we're going to be discussing.

[00:01:24] Speaker 03:
That's where we believe the construction is clearly erroneous.

[00:01:28] Speaker 03:
And what happens with the board here is it looks like the board is definitely trying to preserve the examiner's rejection and brings up

[00:01:39] Speaker 03:
written description issues, says that the actual plain language of that claim limitation is not supported, and then comes out with a construction of some sort of touch on some area of the display.

[00:01:57] Speaker 03:
And our position is that is just not the plain and orderly meaning.

[00:02:01] Speaker 04:
Well, let's assume for a moment

[00:02:03] Speaker 04:
That the board's construction is the same as your construction, so why doesn't lmae disclose this?

[00:02:11] Speaker 04:
because it discloses the left-right swipe, and you have to start on the left side, for example.

[00:02:18] Speaker 04:
OK, so what?

[00:02:20] Speaker 04:
I mean, well, I don't understand.

[00:02:22] Speaker 03:
I'm having trouble understanding.

[00:02:23] Speaker 03:
I'll assume that's a tough assumption, because I don't believe.

[00:02:26] Speaker 03:
Wait, wait, wait.

[00:02:27] Speaker 03:
OK, sorry.

[00:02:28] Speaker 04:
I'm having trouble looking at Le Bay.

[00:02:31] Speaker 04:
It seems to me that it doesn't say

[00:02:33] Speaker 04:
But the swipe has to start in a particular place.

[00:02:37] Speaker 04:
It shows arrows running in both ways, up and down, or left and right.

[00:02:42] Speaker 04:
And so why doesn't LeMay satisfy this?

[00:02:48] Speaker 04:
It's a left, right swipe gesture can be started.

[00:02:53] Speaker 04:
any place on the screen that's consistent with the gesture.

[00:02:57] Speaker 04:
I mean, you can't start at the extreme right, I guess, but that's just because of the nature of the gesture and not because you can't use a particular part of the screen.

[00:03:07] Speaker 03:
Right, so the board relies on the examiner's citation of 204 and 250, paragraphs 204 and 250.

[00:03:16] Speaker 03:
And that's at appendix 647 and then appendix 650.

[00:03:20] Speaker 03:
I don't agree with the assumption, because I don't believe somewhere means anywhere.

[00:03:25] Speaker 03:
I think those are completely different terms, OK?

[00:03:28] Speaker 03:
Anywhere means anywhere.

[00:03:31] Speaker 03:
You can touch anywhere on the touch sensor display of the actual device

[00:03:38] Speaker 03:
And in those two paragraphs, 204 and 250, you have touches.

[00:03:50] Speaker 03:
You have touches that are in specific areas of a widget.

[00:03:54] Speaker 03:
And then you have swipes that are across the display of the widget.

[00:03:59] Speaker 03:
But I think that's the big distinction, and that's why the board didn't apply the plating order.

[00:04:07] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:04:07] Speaker 04:
I'm not understanding what you're saying.

[00:04:08] Speaker 04:
I'm looking at 622, and it shows a swipe at the left or right.

[00:04:15] Speaker 04:
Why isn't a swipe a gesture within, as discussed in the specification of the patent?

[00:04:24] Speaker 04:
The left-right swipe is a gesture which can start any place on the screen.

[00:04:29] Speaker 04:
I mean, consistent with the kind of gesture it is.

[00:04:32] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:04:32] Speaker 03:
So this is limited.

[00:04:34] Speaker 03:
And if you look at, I'm at 622 also, so I'm looking at the picture.

[00:04:38] Speaker 03:
It's a figure F5M.

[00:04:40] Speaker 03:
This is limited.

[00:04:42] Speaker 03:
to the widget display, not the full touch sensitive display of the smart device.

[00:04:48] Speaker 03:
You can see that.

[00:04:49] Speaker 03:
That also, if you look at 646, we'll start there, it specifically says we're displaying the

[00:04:57] Speaker 03:
a web clip widget, it's always talking about just the widget, not the full display, which is actually in the claim language, in the Anywhere claim limitation language.

[00:05:11] Speaker 03:
So if you look at 204, it's talking about just displaying it in the widget, the displayed widget, the displayed widget.

[00:05:17] Speaker 03:
Remember, the widget's just popping up.

[00:05:19] Speaker 03:
It's just a small little widget in the full display of the smart device.

[00:05:24] Speaker 04:
So you agree that it shows anywhere on the widget.

[00:05:27] Speaker 03:
the widget correct yes and that if you look at 250 at page appendix 650 also limited to the widget and so

[00:05:35] Speaker 03:
That's why the board did this.

[00:05:37] Speaker 03:
The board saw that LeMay was limited to just this little displayed widget and all the touches and stuff like that, and then changed the construction from anywhere to somewhere.

[00:05:54] Speaker 03:
And we think that construction is erroneous, because it's contrary to the plain and ordinary meaning.

[00:06:00] Speaker 03:
It's contrary to the claims.

[00:06:02] Speaker 03:
It's contrary to the specification.

[00:06:05] Speaker 04:
Did you argue to the board that LeMay only disclosed any place on the widget as opposed to any place on the whole screen?

[00:06:17] Speaker 03:
We did argue that.

[00:06:18] Speaker 03:
You'll see a lot of it.

[00:06:20] Speaker 03:
We kept saying, look, it's... Can you tell me where you argued?

[00:06:22] Speaker 03:
Sure.

[00:06:25] Speaker 03:
I'm going to go to probably the appeals brief.

[00:06:29] Speaker 03:
It's the best place.

[00:06:32] Speaker 03:
Well, to be clear,

[00:06:34] Speaker 03:
If you remember, this construction, some area, was created by the board.

[00:06:42] Speaker 03:
So we didn't have the distinction of anywhere versus somewhere.

[00:06:47] Speaker 03:
It was created by the board.

[00:06:49] Speaker 03:
We did argue that LeMay, though, didn't have it anyway.

[00:06:53] Speaker 03:
Let me find you that exactly.

[00:06:54] Speaker 03:
Because we applied the Plain and Ornate language.

[00:07:14] Speaker 03:
It would have had to be argued because the the the board says we argued it But I'm trying to find exactly where it well it says if you look at If you look at appendix three

[00:07:41] Speaker 03:
an appendix for, it says, the two issues.

[00:07:45] Speaker 03:
Does the combination of Kim and LeMay's teacher suggest responding to it first?

[00:07:50] Speaker 04:
But I'm looking for where you argued that LeMay shows anywhere on the widget screen, but not anywhere on the whole screen, which I understand to be your sole argument at this point.

[00:08:10] Speaker 02:
So if you look at appendix 521, that's where we discussed LeMay, but I don't.

[00:08:32] Speaker 04:
Well, you can try to find it.

[00:08:34] Speaker 03:
I know it was argued that LeMay doesn't disclose the claim limitation because it doesn't disclose the anywhere on the touch-sensitive display.

[00:08:46] Speaker 03:
As opposed to the widget.

[00:08:51] Speaker 03:
But going back to

[00:08:53] Speaker 03:
That's the issue with LeMay, and that's why the board you can see created this very erroneous construction by getting into written description and then saying that some sort of touch on some area of the display is what the anywhere limitation means.

[00:09:15] Speaker 03:
That's just contrary to the plain-ordinary meeting.

[00:09:17] Speaker 03:
And I'm going to go back, because it's very clear.

[00:09:19] Speaker 03:
There's no discussion of predetermined user input.

[00:09:23] Speaker 03:
And then there's no discussion of any area of the touch sensitive display.

[00:09:27] Speaker 03:
They just change any to some to read in the lame discussion of the widget.

[00:09:37] Speaker 03:
And so we would say, just based on that, the court should reverse

[00:09:44] Speaker 03:
the board's decision because the claims construction is wrong.

[00:09:47] Speaker 03:
And then if you actually apply the correct construction, LeMay doesn't disclose.

[00:09:54] Speaker 03:
the proper construction of the anywhere limitation.

[00:10:00] Speaker 03:
I mean, as I said before, the board never discussed any area.

[00:10:03] Speaker 03:
No discussion predetermined at appendix five and six.

[00:10:09] Speaker 03:
The director, under the proper construction, where you actually apply the plane in order of meeting, the director doesn't dispute that LeMay doesn't disclose that at 23 and 24.

[00:10:22] Speaker 03:
And as we discussed, you have LeMay limiting its disclosure to the widget screen, not the full touch sensitive display on the smartphone, not anywhere on the full touch display on the smartphone.

[00:10:39] Speaker 03:
I do want to briefly discuss the motivation to combine holding only because it's just

[00:10:52] Speaker 03:
It's one of those situations where the examiner and then the board just kept trying to find something that would work.

[00:11:00] Speaker 03:
And initially, the examiner said, look, it would reduce the cognitive burden to combine LeMay with Kim and to use what LeMay does on Kim.

[00:11:12] Speaker 03:
When pressed during prosecution,

[00:11:16] Speaker 03:
It said, oh, it's because Kim, to support its motivation to come up with something to support its motivation, it says Kim had really small buttons.

[00:11:27] Speaker 03:
And if you look at 594, that substantial evidence just cannot support that.

[00:11:32] Speaker 03:
It definitely shows that the board improperly just created some type of problem so that their motivation

[00:11:43] Speaker 03:
Would work if you look at finding before you can see the actual arm this is figure 5a of kim the buttons are bigger than the fingertips So that's not the motivation to combine also fails there So we'd ask that the you know the the court Reversed with the very least AK with the proper with with to provide the proper construction There's no further questions, okay, thank you

[00:12:14] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:12:14] Speaker 04:
Lateef.

[00:12:19] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:12:20] Speaker 01:
May it please the Court.

[00:12:21] Speaker 01:
I'd just like to start where Your Honor Judge Dyke asked the question about whether or not there was any discussion about LeMay.

[00:12:29] Speaker 01:
If you look at the blue brief that was submitted before this Court, there is no argument about whether or not LeMay teaches under the board's construction.

[00:12:39] Speaker 01:
So in fact, we point out that that has been forfeited.

[00:12:42] Speaker 01:
If you accept

[00:12:43] Speaker 01:
the board's construction, there's no question that it's taught in the references.

[00:12:47] Speaker 01:
The question then remains whether there is a motivation to combine.

[00:12:50] Speaker 01:
So the two issues before this court are the claim construction and whether or not there's a motivation.

[00:12:55] Speaker 01:
There's not a question whether or not the prior art teaches the limitations under the board's construction.

[00:13:00] Speaker 04:
OK, but putting aside the question of waiver or forfeiture, what's the answer to the contention?

[00:13:06] Speaker 04:
that LeMay discloses only a portion of the screen referred to as a widget portion as opposed to the whole screen.

[00:13:14] Speaker 01:
So under the board's construction it teaches every piece of under the construction of the response limitation.

[00:13:21] Speaker 01:
LeMay fits that bill when you swipe or tap or gesture onto an area.

[00:13:27] Speaker 04:
They seem to agree that that's the case but their whole argument now

[00:13:32] Speaker 04:
is, oh, well, LeMay's only referring to doing that on a portion of the screen, which I guess they call the widget portion of the screen, as opposed to the whole screen.

[00:13:41] Speaker 01:
Because they disagree with the claim.

[00:13:43] Speaker 04:
Which is sort of new to me.

[00:13:44] Speaker 04:
I don't remember seeing that argument before.

[00:13:46] Speaker 01:
Because it didn't exist.

[00:13:47] Speaker 01:
You didn't see it because it's not there.

[00:13:49] Speaker 01:
It's not in the record.

[00:13:50] Speaker 01:
It's not in the blue brief.

[00:13:51] Speaker 01:
Their issue now is that the board got the construction wrong, which we disagree with.

[00:13:57] Speaker 01:
And if the board got the construction wrong, they then argue,

[00:14:01] Speaker 01:
well, LeMay wouldn't fit under that construction.

[00:14:05] Speaker 01:
Our position is... And on that second proposition, do you disagree?

[00:14:10] Speaker 00:
I disagree, but I will... Why?

[00:14:12] Speaker 00:
I kind of have been understanding that that's what we've been discussing.

[00:14:17] Speaker 00:
That if their construction is right, then LeMay doesn't teach it.

[00:14:23] Speaker 00:
And that's why it's really important to figure out if the construction is right or not, as opposed to thinking

[00:14:31] Speaker 00:
not clear why the construction dispute matters.

[00:14:34] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:14:35] Speaker 01:
I just want to be clear, Your Honor.

[00:14:36] Speaker 01:
I disagree with that proposition, but I'm not a fact finder.

[00:14:39] Speaker 01:
The board didn't make that decision because it wasn't, they just did their construction and said under this construction, the may fits.

[00:14:47] Speaker 01:
If for some reason, this court disagrees with the board and needed to adopt another claim construction, the fact finding board would be, it would be up to the board to decide whether or not there is

[00:14:59] Speaker 01:
whether or not LeMay teaches that limitation.

[00:15:01] Speaker 01:
So as I stand here today, I can tell you what I believe, but again, I'm just defending the board's decision.

[00:15:07] Speaker 01:
I'm not a fact finder, so I can't stand in the place of the board.

[00:15:10] Speaker 04:
Do you think there's a distinction between their construction and the board's construction?

[00:15:16] Speaker 01:
I think their construction's a little bit narrower.

[00:15:20] Speaker 01:
But again, if you look at the intrinsic evidence, there's two points.

[00:15:26] Speaker 01:
Let me back up a little bit.

[00:15:28] Speaker 01:
So they make a big to do about the predetermined part of the limitation, which wasn't really at issue to be construed, because that was never in dispute.

[00:15:38] Speaker 01:
So they want some specific type of input.

[00:15:42] Speaker 01:
And the board said that's not what the specification requires.

[00:15:46] Speaker 01:
It can pretty much be some sort of gesture.

[00:15:48] Speaker 01:
It can be a tap.

[00:15:49] Speaker 01:
It can be a swipe.

[00:15:50] Speaker 01:
It could be a vertical or a horizontal swipe.

[00:15:54] Speaker 01:
So on that aspect of it, it's narrower because they want something specific.

[00:15:58] Speaker 01:
I don't know what that something is, but their argument is it has to be a pre-mapped, specific, predetermined gesture.

[00:16:04] Speaker 01:
The other piece about any area comes in because they

[00:16:10] Speaker 01:
argue that it can be anywhere, though the specification doesn't really support that, whereas the board says, no, it just has to be somewhere on the display screen.

[00:16:19] Speaker 04:
What's the difference?

[00:16:20] Speaker 01:
Well, because anywhere, maybe, it could mean top part of the display screen, and maybe when you swipe, you only touch a piece of it.

[00:16:33] Speaker 01:
It is sort of a little bit of semantics here.

[00:16:36] Speaker 01:
You know, I tend to have fat fingers, so if I'm swiping, excuse me, maybe I don't get the specific corner in the way that under the construction of anywhere would come in.

[00:16:45] Speaker 01:
But it's somewhere.

[00:16:46] Speaker 01:
It's on the display screen.

[00:16:48] Speaker 01:
That's sort of the difference.

[00:16:49] Speaker 01:
It's very minor.

[00:16:50] Speaker 04:
I don't see the difference, but go ahead.

[00:16:54] Speaker 01:
Well, the board felt that there was nothing in the specification that was explicit to describe the anywhere.

[00:17:02] Speaker 01:
So they looked at the part in the specification.

[00:17:06] Speaker 04:
They say anywhere means somewhere.

[00:17:09] Speaker 04:
So somewhere is anywhere.

[00:17:10] Speaker 04:
I don't know.

[00:17:11] Speaker 04:
What's the difference?

[00:17:15] Speaker 01:
Never mind.

[00:17:15] Speaker 01:
So yeah, I mean, I guess I would say it's not nowhere.

[00:17:18] Speaker 00:
Let me see if I can find words to what I understand the dispute to be.

[00:17:27] Speaker 00:
Under the board's view,

[00:17:31] Speaker 00:
I don't know, a processing device that accepts the particular kinds of gestures.

[00:17:38] Speaker 00:
Even if this processing device accepted it only in the southeast quadrant, that would read on this.

[00:17:50] Speaker 00:
This would read on that.

[00:17:51] Speaker 00:
Their view is the device has to accept the gestures throughout the display.

[00:17:58] Speaker 00:
I think that's accurate.

[00:17:59] Speaker 00:
That's the distinction.

[00:18:01] Speaker 00:
And then, I mean, one trouble is that I would have thought it to be almost self-evident by now to drafters that the word any imports precisely that ambiguity.

[00:18:13] Speaker 00:
Sometimes it means at a given place, sometimes it means at all times.

[00:18:20] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:18:22] Speaker 01:
That's true, but because there was no

[00:18:24] Speaker 01:
explicit definition in the claim for anywhere, the board decided, well, we need to look and see what the specification says.

[00:18:29] Speaker 01:
Well, what does that mean?

[00:18:31] Speaker 01:
And because there was nothing in there, they looked at this one section on APPX 47 and said, well, it can mean some gesture somewhere, not specific to.

[00:18:41] Speaker 04:
Well, not to make this too complicated, but the prosecution history of this patent shows rejecting a predetermined place on the screen.

[00:18:50] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:18:51] Speaker 01:
I agree, Your Honor, but that wasn't even in construction.

[00:18:54] Speaker 01:
So this whole conversation about the board's construction, the predetermined part wasn't in dispute.

[00:18:58] Speaker 01:
The board was specifically focused on this part about the NE area.

[00:19:02] Speaker 01:
If you look at the way this happened.

[00:19:05] Speaker 04:
Well, I'm not talking about predetermined gesture.

[00:19:06] Speaker 04:
I'm talking about predetermined area.

[00:19:09] Speaker 01:
Oh, the predetermined area.

[00:19:11] Speaker 04:
And that was explicitly rejected in the prosecution, not a predetermined area.

[00:19:17] Speaker 01:
Right, and I don't think the board is asking for a predetermined area as much as some place on the screen.

[00:19:24] Speaker 01:
I mean, there's no predetermined area.

[00:19:26] Speaker 01:
I mean, even under the board's construction, there's no requirement that the area has to be a specific place.

[00:19:32] Speaker 01:
It's just some place on the screen.

[00:19:35] Speaker 01:
And if you can do that, then the prior arc falls into that construction.

[00:19:42] Speaker 01:
And there's no question, because it was never disputed by Universal Electronics.

[00:19:49] Speaker 00:
And just remind me, what is the intrinsic evidence for the board's saying that accepting, recognizing the touch from a particular place, not necessarily predefined, falls within this claim?

[00:20:11] Speaker 01:
The board ended up pointing to APPX 47.

[00:20:15] Speaker 01:
And I guess it's that's the area that's talking about the description of figure five in the specification and There's a part that says sort of down at the bottom of that paragraph around line Around line 19 it says once configured the widget GUI 502 may be invoked at any point without switching to the main remote control application by activating an icon provided for that purpose and

[00:20:44] Speaker 01:
by a gesture, by motion of the smart device.

[00:20:47] Speaker 01:
The board cited to that as their reason to interpret the gesture to be on a touch-sensitive display as some sort of touch on some area of the display.

[00:20:59] Speaker 01:
You can see their explanation on APPX6.

[00:21:02] Speaker 00:
Is that reading the three-word phrase at any point to be about place as opposed to time?

[00:21:11] Speaker 01:
Is the reading on 47 is that your question?

[00:21:14] Speaker 00:
Yes line 20 of the page.

[00:21:15] Speaker 00:
We're just looking at once figured widget GUI 502 may be invoked at any at any point without switching Does that mean at any time or at any spot?

[00:21:28] Speaker 01:
I think the board looked at that as any spot Which is why they point to this area of the specification to find so you look at if you look at 47

[00:21:38] Speaker 01:
That's what they're referencing on page 6 of their, I'm sorry, APPX 6 of their opinion in that first full paragraph.

[00:21:53] Speaker 01:
So just moving on to the motivation to combine, if that's OK.

[00:22:00] Speaker 01:
The other issue in this case is whether or not there's a motivation to combine Kim and LeMay and Universal Electronics

[00:22:06] Speaker 01:
says that, well, this combination shouldn't be because it doesn't reduce cognitive burden.

[00:22:13] Speaker 01:
And the board actually points to LeMay to talk about how when you have these portable devices, oftentimes the more icons you put on them, the harder they are to read.

[00:22:24] Speaker 01:
And so it would make sense that you can do something as easily as a swipe gesture.

[00:22:28] Speaker 01:
But in addition, if this court disagrees with that motivation,

[00:22:32] Speaker 01:
The board also made the point that, and this is on APPX 546, using a swipe gesture, which was within the level and ordinary scale at the time of the claim of invention, was made to substitute a tap gesture is a simple substitution that does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure.

[00:22:51] Speaker 01:
So the board sort of made two findings here.

[00:22:54] Speaker 01:
One is reduce cognitive burden, but also it's a simple substitution, a predictable result,

[00:23:01] Speaker 01:
if you disagree with the cognitive burden piece.

[00:23:04] Speaker 01:
That's another reason why there would be a motivation to combine here.

[00:23:09] Speaker 01:
And if there are no further questions, I'll yield my time and respectfully ask that this court affirm the board's decision.

[00:23:17] Speaker 04:
OK, thank you, Elizabeth.

[00:23:19] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:23:20] Speaker 04:
Mr. Lucas?

[00:23:27] Speaker 03:
Couple of points on the anywhere because I think that's kind of where we're at I'm at appendix 46.

[00:23:34] Speaker 03:
This is the original specification And I think this is probably the best way to kind of lead into the proper construction In some embodiments this input may be recognized only performed within area 304 while in other embodiments Are you reading from the very top of the page line to yes?

[00:23:52] Speaker 03:
I am sorry

[00:23:53] Speaker 03:
Thank you, your honor.

[00:23:54] Speaker 03:
While in other embodiments, it may be recognized when performed anywhere on the touch-sensitive surface of the smart device.

[00:24:02] Speaker 03:
So I think our position is it's anywhere, all possible places.

[00:24:09] Speaker 03:
And that's different than just somewhere on the screen.

[00:24:16] Speaker 03:
Some work is much broader and incorrect because it covers, it could just be a specific spot.

[00:24:24] Speaker 03:
What's novel and not obvious about this claimed invention was

[00:24:27] Speaker 03:
You could have your touchscreen display, and you had pre-programmed swipes or double taps, stuff like that, that you could touch anywhere on the screen, and you could pull up a widget.

[00:24:37] Speaker 03:
That's what was so novel about this.

[00:24:39] Speaker 03:
And that's the distinction.

[00:24:41] Speaker 03:
It wasn't just in a specific space.

[00:24:43] Speaker 03:
And we believe that that construction is limited to a specific space, just somewhere, not the entirety of the screen.

[00:24:50] Speaker 03:
And that's why we think the construction is wrong.

[00:24:54] Speaker 00:
Are we still in the BRI world here?

[00:24:57] Speaker 03:
What do you mean by that?

[00:24:59] Speaker 00:
Broadest reasonable interpretation.

[00:25:01] Speaker 00:
Correct, yes.

[00:25:01] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:25:02] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:25:03] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:25:04] Speaker 03:
Plain order of meaning, broadest reasonable interpretation.

[00:25:07] Speaker 03:
And you can see from the board's construction, that's very far away.

[00:25:13] Speaker 03:
Getting into a written description analysis, that's also improper at Appendix 6.

[00:25:20] Speaker 03:
I went back and I looked.

[00:25:22] Speaker 03:
We didn't specifically argue that issue because I think it didn't come up until the board's decision.

[00:25:29] Speaker 04:
Did you argue it in the blue brief?

[00:25:31] Speaker 03:
I believe we did, yes.

[00:25:33] Speaker 03:
We pointed out the anywhere part.

[00:25:35] Speaker 03:
I don't know if we specifically called out widget versus what we said.

[00:25:38] Speaker 03:
Yeah, I didn't think it did.

[00:25:41] Speaker 03:
And I will say that the director's not argued any type of waiver.

[00:25:45] Speaker 03:
I think it really comes down to on the claim construction.

[00:25:51] Speaker 04:
On that latter point, they are arguing for further weight.

[00:25:54] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:25:55] Speaker 03:
But on the issue of the incorrect construction, this court reviews that de novo.

[00:26:00] Speaker 03:
And under that construction, the determination of the board, our positions cannot stand.

[00:26:07] Speaker 03:
On the motivation combined, I just want to touch on a couple of points.

[00:26:14] Speaker 03:
The director referenced LeMay.

[00:26:16] Speaker 03:
That's not the primary reference being modified.

[00:26:19] Speaker 03:
The issue that the court should look at and the board should look at is, well, what supports that there's a motivation to modify Kim?

[00:26:30] Speaker 03:
And you look at the buttons, and it's just not there.

[00:26:33] Speaker 03:
Those buttons are not too small.

[00:26:35] Speaker 03:
That doesn't support the problem.

[00:26:37] Speaker 03:
It doesn't create the problem.

[00:26:38] Speaker 03:
They create doesn't support the motivation combined, okay?

[00:26:41] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Raj.

[00:26:42] Speaker 04:
Thank you